The High Court of Bombay issued directions for adjudication of a show cause notice over EPCG unit status before an authority instead of granting the writ petition directly, while permitting an interim application.
Petition disposed with directions; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-2805-11.sxw
1
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2805 OF 2011
Hanil Era Textiles .... Petitioner vs The Commissioner, Central Excise & anr. .... Respondent
Mr. Mukesh M. Vashi with Ms. Prachi Khandge i/by M/s. M. P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Suchitra Kamble for respondent no.1.
CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE : June 07, 2011
P.C.:
In these proceedings, the Petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to carry on business as an Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Unit under the EPCG Scheme. Consequential reliefs have also been sought directing the Commissioner of Central Excise to issue a No Dues Certificate to the Petitioner and to issue a de-bonding certificate to the Unit.
wp-2805-11.sxw
2
2 At the hearing of the Petition, attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that a notice to show cause has been issued to the Petitioner on 1 June 2011 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. The subject matter of the notice clearly overlaps the substantive contentions in the proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, it will only be appropriate and proper if an adjudication on the issues which arise in these proceedings takes place in the first instance before the Adjudicating Authority.
3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner shall file a reply to the notice to show cause within a period of one week from today. Counsel for the Respondent states that the Adjudicating Authority shall adjudicate upon the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order after furnishing to the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a period of four weeks. The statement is made on the instructions of a competent person who is present before the Court.
wp-2805-11.sxw
3
4 The Petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before the Adjudicating Authority for an appropriate interim arrangement interalia permitting the Petitioner to run the Unit as an EPCG Unit in the meantime. In the event such an application is made, the Adjudicating Authority will consider the application on its own merits and would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on an expeditious basis, preferably within a period of two weeks of the filing of the application.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)
Hanil Era Textiles
The Commissioner, Central Excise
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
